Courts and Tribunals Bill

Baroness Sater Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, as a former youth magistrate, I welcome the opportunity to contribute. I declare an interest as a life member of the Magistrates’ Association. As a former magistrate, there are obviously many issues that I could talk about, but I will focus on Clause 5, which extends magistrates’ sentencing powers, and Clause 18, which concerns magistrates’ allowances.

I turn first to Clause 5. I recognise the argument for enabling magistrates’ courts to deal with a wider range of cases, as supported by the Magistrates’ Association, thereby freeing up capacity in the Crown Court. However, as we have heard, I fear that some of the changes in the Bill risk placing the magistracy under unsustainable pressure. Greater powers mean greater responsibilities. This is not simply a question of giving magistrates greater authority; it means them making more demanding sentencing decisions, with potentially more significant consequences for defendants. Whether the system is ready to support magistrates in exercising those powers effectively is a different question. Magistrates’ courts already deal with over 90% of criminal cases in England and Wales. It is worth noting that, in 2025, they disposed of approximately 1.46 million cases, which illustrates the substantial caseload already handled by the magistrates’ courts. Clause 5 will add even more cases. The Government must demonstrate that this additional work can be absorbed without simply moving the backlog from one court to another.

The Government have set a target of 21,000 magistrates by 2028-29, compared with just over 15,000 in post across England and Wales in April 2026. In the year to March 2026, 1,663 magistrates were appointed, although it is worth mentioning that 988 left—up 20% on the previous year. The latest figures show that 890 magistrates were appointed between July and September 2026, more than double the number appointed in the same quarter a year earlier. That is encouraging progress, but there remains a long way to go. Recruitment must be matched by the capacity to train, mentor and support new magistrates. I fear this could increase the workload of existing magistrates and make retention more challenging.

As noble Lords have already mentioned, at the end of June 2026 there were just over 380,000 open cases in magistrates’ courts, alongside just under 81,000 in the Crown Court. These are not simply numbers on a spreadsheet. Chief Inspector of Probation Martin Jones has highlighted the unfairness faced by

“defendants who are waiting for an excessive time, sometimes on remand, to establish their guilt or innocence”.

The Independent Review of the Criminal Courts estimated that these reforms will require 8,500 additional sitting days in magistrates’ courts. The Justice Committee has already questioned whether the Government’s plans to expand magistrates’ court capacity are deliverable, so I would be grateful to learn from the Minister how the Government will be able to provide the additional sitting days, legal advisers, court staff, IT systems and suitable facilities needed to deliver these reforms.

We already know we have an issue around the retention of legal advisers. Legal advisers are critical. If we do not have enough of them when these reforms are implemented, cases will not be able to be heard, even if magistrates are available to sit. There is also an issue around pay. Pay parity for legal advisers with comparable CPS roles must be fully implemented if we are to retain and attract sufficient numbers. I recognise that work is under way on this, but it must be a central part of delivering these reforms.

When magistrates’ sentencing powers were previously extended, additional training was provided by the Judicial College. Giving evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee in June this year, the Lady Chief Justice highlighted the pressure on the college. Referring to the Sentencing Act, she described

“a huge amount of additional training need”.

She also confirmed that there would be an increased demand for training as new magistrates came on board. The Bill will extend magistrates’ sentencing powers further. I therefore hope that the Government will provide the Judicial College with the further funding necessary to ensure that both new and serving magistrates receive the training they need to exercise these powers effectively before they come into force.

We must not put the cart before the horse. Operational readiness must determine the timetable, not an arbitrary deadline. The Magistrates’ Association has highlighted the need for efficiency measures to address avoidable delays and administrative pressures. I agree that this must be part of the solution, but efficiency measures alone cannot compensate for insufficient staffing or lack of available court time. This will ensure that victims, defendants and witnesses receive the justice they deserve.

I turn briefly to Clause 18. Magistrates undertake serious judicial responsibilities as volunteers, and they should not be left out of pocket. The Magistrates’ Association surveyed 1,362 magistrates in 2022. Its findings showed that many respondents had to make up the difference between the expenses they could claim and the costs they actually incurred. The association has long argued for greater flexibility in the expenses system so that reimbursement can reflect the modern working patterns and changing circumstances of magistrates, and I welcome the intention behind this provision—but the detail matters. The revised framework must ensure that legitimate expenses are reimbursed fairly and promptly. If the Government want to grow the magistracy and make it more representative, people in employment, people with caring responsibilities and people unable to absorb additional costs must be able to serve without financial disadvantage. A diverse magistracy is essential if the Bench is to reflect the communities it serves.

These two clauses are connected. Whether we are talking about sentencing powers or allowances, the principle is the same: the magistracy cannot be expected to do more without the necessary support. The contribution of magistrates should never be taken for granted. If we ask them to shoulder greater responsibility, we must ensure that they are properly supported.